sarahmichigan (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sarahmichigan) wrote2007-02-12 09:36 am
sarahmichigan) wrote2007-02-12 09:36 am
Questions about Logic and Reason
Some questions have come up in my mind or the mind of my LJ friends as I've been putting up logical fallacies, with examples, for discussion.
1. How much should we rely on reason and how much on emotion when making decisions about our personal lives? Setting law? Other decisions?
2. Are there circumstances where purely reason should be used to make decisions? Only emotion?
3. How much of our laws are based on morality? How much should be?
I tend to agree with the position that other people shouldn't be able to force their morality on me in the form of laws about private consensual adult behavior. And yet, some of our laws obviously reflect the majority's moral stance on various issues (i.e. "murder is wrong"). However, I think that while there is an *overlap* between morality and law, morality isn't the sole or even most important factor for determining law, because morals vary from good person to another good person, based on personal experience, religious and cultural background, etc. What I think is going on is a sort of "societal contract," in which we agree not to murder one another not so much for moral reasons as for practical ones. There's a reason that banishment was a terrible judgment thousands of years ago; especially in primitive environments, it's much harder to survive on your own than in a cooperative group. People who violate the unspoken social contract put the good of the group in danger, and that's why we agree to many laws that restrict our freedom-- it's because they're for the good of the whole group, even when they infringe on individual's rights.
Anyhow, additional thoughts on any of these questions?
1. How much should we rely on reason and how much on emotion when making decisions about our personal lives? Setting law? Other decisions?
2. Are there circumstances where purely reason should be used to make decisions? Only emotion?
3. How much of our laws are based on morality? How much should be?
I tend to agree with the position that other people shouldn't be able to force their morality on me in the form of laws about private consensual adult behavior. And yet, some of our laws obviously reflect the majority's moral stance on various issues (i.e. "murder is wrong"). However, I think that while there is an *overlap* between morality and law, morality isn't the sole or even most important factor for determining law, because morals vary from good person to another good person, based on personal experience, religious and cultural background, etc. What I think is going on is a sort of "societal contract," in which we agree not to murder one another not so much for moral reasons as for practical ones. There's a reason that banishment was a terrible judgment thousands of years ago; especially in primitive environments, it's much harder to survive on your own than in a cooperative group. People who violate the unspoken social contract put the good of the group in danger, and that's why we agree to many laws that restrict our freedom-- it's because they're for the good of the whole group, even when they infringe on individual's rights.
Anyhow, additional thoughts on any of these questions?
no subject
The first view is that the purpose of law is to enforce virtue. Hence, we outlaw murder because murder is morally wrong; we outlaw theft because it is morally wrong to steal the property of another; we outlaw sexual intercorse with a person not one's spouse because such intercourse is morally objectionable.
This is the view of law embraced by almost all social and religious conservatives. Such prominent figures as Edwin Meese, Charles Keating, and John Ashcroft have espoused this view of law (Keating once told Congress, "I say legislate morality, and then enforce those laws!"-ironically, he was later convicted of embezzling money from Lincoln Savings and Loan, causing a collapse that triggered the destruction of the entire savings and loan industry).
The opposing view is that te function of law is to provide a stable foundation upon which to build a society rests, but providing this stable foundation is not a question of morality. So, murder is illegal because a society can not function if its citizens can kill one another with impunity; theft is illegal because the social system of financial exchange can not function if its members are free to steal from one another or defraud one another; but the regulation of consenting adults' sex lives is a matter outside the function and purview of the state, as it does not affect the ordinary operation of practical social systems.
I personally adopt the second view; regulating morality is not and never should be the proper role of the state. I doubt that you will find anyone who embraces one view who will accept the other, however.
no subject